Feature or Bug: D&D's Power and Complexity Curve

[Reynard]

NOTE: Hopefully this can be a friendly discussion regarding the subject. I am going to express and opinion but I want to say right off the bat that it is true FOR ME and I am not suggesting it is an objective truth.

The steep power and complexity curve in D&D (5E, yes, but also 3.x and PF) expressed through it's leveling system is a bug. it makes the game less fun for me, particularly as a GM. it breaks my sense of immersion in the world and it limits and constricts the kinds of adventures, campaigns and stories that I can tell through D&D. D&D would be better if leveling were divorced from the power and complexity curve.

Alright, let me unpack some of that.

By "power and complexity curve" I mean how PCs increase both in scale and scope as they gain levels. Early on, they are rat hunters and later the rats need to be REALLY BIG. Moreover, they have much broader capabilities (this is especially true of casters). The problem with this is that it necessitates a change in the kinds of opposition and adventure trappings that the PCs must encounter. It isn't merely incremental, either. At low level, a 20 foot sheer cliff wall is a reasonable barrier or challenge. Very shortly it becomes inconsequential. The same can be said for other kinds of opposition, both environmental hazards and enemies. As such, this means that the actual world in which the PCs inhabit has to change similarly in scale and scope as the PCs level up. And due to this, the nature of the "story" of the game world or campaign must change as well.

By way of example (and yes I know it is not perfect) imagine the Lord of the Rings as a D&D campaign. Peter Jackson's tendency to up the ante with every new action sequence, there is not a lot of what would in D&D be recognized as leveling happening for anyone aside from the hobbits (and then arguably). The trappings of the story remain largely the same throughout the "campaign" and while the party moves ever closer to the end game, they don't change dramatically on their way. Aragorn isn't leaping Mordor's walls by the final battle, for example. Another example might be the Uncharted series of video games. Literally no mechanical advancement occurs over the course of those games, which comprise a connected series of adventures that certainly looks a lot like a "campaign."

Now, I am not saying there should be NO mechanical advancement, just that specifically the power and complexity curve of D&D is a problem especially when taken over the course of a long campaign.

Discuss.

 

[TwoSix]

I think this has been a standard critique of D&D pretty much since its inception.

It's why 5e broadens the XP curve from levels 5 to 10, to extend the "sweet spot" of play.

It's why a lot of later 4e supplements focused on Heroic tier play (1-10), where the complexity wasn't as high.

It's why e6 (where leveling stopped at 6 and characters only gained feats from then on) was a popular house rule during the 3e era.

 

[Reynard]

I think this has been a standard critique of D&D pretty much since its inception.

It's why 5e broadens the XP curve from levels 5 to 10, to extend the "sweet spot" of play.

It's why a lot of later 4e supplements focused on Heroic tier play (1-10), where the complexity wasn't as high.

It's why e6 (where leveling stopped at 6 and characters only gained feats from then on) was a popular house rule during the 3e era.

But even from 1st through 6th the game changes dramatically based on the capabilities of the PCs.

 

[Charlaquin]

The thing is, it’s a game, not just a story. The increasing power curve may constrain the stories you can use the system to tell, but they also make for a better game experience.

 

[TwoSix]

But even from 1st through 6th the game changes dramatically based on the capabilities of the PCs.

Sure does! But much less so than from 1-20.

I'm just not sure if you're looking for solutions in the form of other games that aren't like standard D&D, solutions in the form of house rules, or just want to know if other people agree with you.

I would say that while I don't disagree with you in general, the power curve for 5e in particular is a little more shallow. I've played high level in both 3.5 and 5e, and a high level character in 3.5 was exponentially more powerful than a high level 5e character. This is mostly due to the inability to layer buff spells, the fact that high level spells in 5e aren't generally as devastating to game balance, and the fact that characters aren't budgeted to have a lot of magic items.

 

[5ekyu]

NOTE: Hopefully this can be a friendly discussion regarding the subject. I am going to express and opinion but I want to say right off the bat that it is true FOR ME and I am not suggesting it is an objective truth.

The steep power and complexity curve in D&D (5E, yes, but also 3.x and PF) expressed through it's leveling system is a bug. it makes the game less fun for me, particularly as a GM. it breaks my sense of immersion in the world and it limits and constricts the kinds of adventures, campaigns and stories that I can tell through D&D. D&D would be better if leveling were divorced from the power and complexity curve.

Alright, let me unpack some of that.

By "power and complexity curve" I mean how PCs increase both in scale and scope as they gain levels. Early on, they are rat hunters and later the rats need to be REALLY BIG. Moreover, they have much broader capabilities (this is especially true of casters). The problem with this is that it necessitates a change in the kinds of opposition and adventure trappings that the PCs must encounter. It isn't merely incremental, either. At low level, a 20 foot sheer cliff wall is a reasonable barrier or challenge. Very shortly it becomes inconsequential. The same can be said for other kinds of opposition, both environmental hazards and enemies. As such, this means that the actual world in which the PCs inhabit has to change similarly in scale and scope as the PCs level up. And due to this, the nature of the "story" of the game world or campaign must change as well.

By way of example (and yes I know it is not perfect) imagine the Lord of the Rings as a D&D campaign. Peter Jackson's tendency to up the ante with every new action sequence, there is not a lot of what would in D&D be recognized as leveling happening for anyone aside from the hobbits (and then arguably). The trappings of the story remain largely the same throughout the "campaign" and while the party moves ever closer to the end game, they don't change dramatically on their way. Aragorn isn't leaping Mordor's walls by the final battle, for example. Another example might be the Uncharted series of video games. Literally no mechanical advancement occurs over the course of those games, which comprise a connected series of adventures that certainly looks a lot like a "campaign."

Now, I am not saying there should be NO mechanical advancement, just that specifically the power and complexity curve of D&D is a problem especially when taken over the course of a long campaign.

Discuss.

The GM is given control of over advancement in 5e with a variety options.
The GM is given control over the place that they start, power speaking.

So, is this a problem of the D&D system? It gives you the options to run a game which levels up from 1st to 4th over 1 month of play or four years of play or never.

All you have to do is have players who agree.

D&D provides a default out-of-the-box setup but fully expects you to use the various options they present as well as any homebrew to better fit your preferences. It's a menu, not force feeding.

I say this as someone who has run campaigns in which the pace of asvancement was greatly diminished and some where it was practically non-existent.

MNM and other systems that derive from similar leveled systems accomplish a much flatter power curve with starting at 10th and very slow progress.

A 5e game in which you started at say 5th and leveled maybe twice a year or once a quarter (assumes weekly play) would be a fairly stable power level.

Just read the menu.

 

[Morrus]

"Zero To Hero" is pretty much D&D's core concept. I think that if you're not on board with that, you're probably going to find D&D a disappointing experience. As with many of these things, it's a buy-in to the basic premise.

 

[jgsugden]

It is hard to think of a defining feature as a bug.

If you do not like it, start at 3rd level and slow the advancement dramatically. I've played in games like that and it worked just fine.

 

[Reynard]

Just as a quick note: I am not looking for advice. I know how to "fix it" if I were so inclined. So while I appreciate the input from people who read my OP that way, it wasn't the intent.

 

[TwoSix]

Possible solutions, if you're looking for a game where the characters change and gain new abilities, but at a lower power level.

1) Run the game with slow level progression, from 3 to 6 or 7. Give out more magic items, especially consumable items, to allow them to tackle tougher challenges and have access to different abilities over time.

2) Progress levels as normal, but cap the progression of any one class to 4 or 5. Progression past that requires multiclassing. This gives the characters enough hit points and proficiency to fight higher level opponents, but they're still much weaker than average. If you cap levels at 4, they won't get any of the level 5 bumps to power (Extra Attack, 3rd level spells), which is pretty significant. If I was doing this, I wouldn't allow cantrips to scale, but I'd probably give martials some kind of attack scaling to compensate for attack spells cast in higher level slots.